http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/10/making-sense-of-your-cholesterol-numbers.aspx

Posted By Dr. Mercola | August 10 2010 | 167,949 views

By Dr. Mercola
Cholesterol could easily be described as the smoking gun of the last two decades.

It”s been responsible for demonizing entire categories of foods (like eggs and saturated fats) and blamed for just about every case of heart disease in the last 20 years.

Yet when I first opened my medical practice in the mid 80s, cholesterol, and the fear that yours was too high was rarely talked about.

Somewhere along the way however, cholesterol became a household word — something that you must keep as low as possible, or suffer the consequences.

You are probably aware that there are many myths that portray fat and cholesterol as one of the worst foods you can consume. Please understand that these myths are actually harming your health.

Not only is cholesterol most likely not going to destroy your health (as you have been led to believe), but it is also not the cause of heart disease.

And for those of you taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, the information that follows could not have been given to you fast enough. But before I delve into this life-changing information, let”s get some basics down first.

What is Cholesterol, and Why Do You Need It?

That”s right, you do need cholesterol.

This soft, waxy substance is found not only in your bloodstream, but also in every cell in your body, where it helps to produce cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps in the formation of your memories and is vital for neurological function.

Your liver makes about 75 percent of your body”s cholesterol,^[i] and according to conventional medicine, there are two types:

1. High-density lipoprotein, or HDL: This is the “good” cholesterol that helps to keep cholesterol away from your arteries and remove any excess from arterial plaque, which may help to prevent heart disease.
2. Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL: This “bad” cholesterol circulates in your blood and, according to conventional thinking, may build up in your arteries, forming plaque that makes your arteries narrow and less flexible (a condition called atherosclerosis). If a clot forms in one of these narrowed arteries leading to your heart or brain, a heart attack or stroke may result.

Also making up your total cholesterol count are:

• Triglycerides: Elevated levels of this dangerous fat have been linked to heart disease and diabetes. Triglyceride levels are known to rise from eating too many grains and sugars, being physically inactive, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol excessively and being overweight or obese.
• Lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a): Lp(a) is a substance that is made up of an LDL “bad cholesterol” part plus a protein (apoprotein a). Elevated Lp(a) levels are a very strong risk factor for heart disease. This has been well established, yet very few physicians check for it in their patients.

Understand this:

Your Total Cholesterol Level is NOT a Great Indicator of Your Heart Disease Risk

Health officials in the United States urge everyone over the age of 20 to have their cholesterol tested once every five years. Part of this test is your total cholesterol, or the sum of your blood”s cholesterol content, including HDL, LDLs, and VLDLs..

The American Heart Association recommends that your total cholesterol is less than 200 mg/dL, but what they do not tell you is that total cholesterol level is just about worthless in determining your risk for heart disease, unless it is above 330.

In addition, the AHA updated their guidelines in 2004, lowering the recommended level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to LDL to less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

In order to achieve these outrageous and dangerously low targets, you typically need to take multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs. So the guidelines instantly increased the market for these dangerous drugs. Now, with testing children”s cholesterol levels, they”re increasing their market even more.

I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who actually were at low heart disease risk due to their HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen even more who had cholesterol levels under 200 that were at a very high risk of heart disease based on the following additional tests:

• HDL/Cholesterol ratio
• Triglyceride/HDL ratios

HDL percentage is a very potent heart disease risk factor. Just divide your HDL level by your cholesterol. That percentage should ideally be above 24 percent.

You can also do the same thing with your triglycerides and HDL ratio. That percentage should be below 2.

Keep in mind, however, that these are still simply guidelines, and there”s a lot more that goes into your risk of heart disease than any one of these numbers. In fact, it was only after word got out that total cholesterol is a poor predictor of heart disease that HDL and LDL cholesterol were brought into the picture.

They give you a closer idea of what”s going on, but they still do not show you everything.

Cholesterol is Neither “Good” Nor “Bad”

Now that we”ve defined good and bad cholesterol, it has to be said that there is actually only one type of cholesterol. Ron Rosedale, MD, who is widely considered to be one of the leading anti-aging doctor in the United States, does an excellent job of explaining this concept:^[ii]
“Notice please that LDL and HDL are lipoproteins — fats combined with proteins. There is only one cholesterol. There is no such thing as “good” or “bad” cholesterol.

Cholesterol is just cholesterol.

It combines with other fats and proteins to be carried through the bloodstream, since fat and our watery blood do not mix very well.

Fatty substances therefore must be shuttled to and from our tissues and cells using proteins. LDL and HDL are forms of proteins and are far from being just cholesterol.

In fact we now know there are many types of these fat and protein particles. LDL particles come in many sizes and large LDL particles are not a problem. Only the so-called small dense LDL particles can potentially be a problem, because they can squeeze through the lining of the arteries and if they oxidize, otherwise known as turning rancid, they can cause damage and inflammation.

Thus, you might say that there is “good LDL” and “bad LDL.”

Also, some HDL particles are better than others. Knowing just your total cholesterol tells you very little. Even knowing your LDL and HDL levels will not tell you very much.”

Cholesterol is Your Friend, Not Your Enemy

Before we continue, I really would like you to get your mind around this concept.

In the United States, the idea that cholesterol is evil is very much engrained in most people”s minds. But this is a very harmful myth that needs to be put to rest right now.
“First and foremost,” Dr. Rosedale points out, “cholesterol is a vital component of every cell membrane on Earth. In other words, there is no life on Earth that can live without cholesterol.

That will automatically tell you that, in and of itself, it cannot be evil. In fact, it is one of our best friends.

We would not be here without it. No wonder lowering cholesterol too much increases one”s risk of dying. Cholesterol is also a precursor to all of the steroid hormones. You cannot make estrogen, testosterone, cortisone, and a host of other vital hormones without cholesterol.”

Vitamin D and Your Cholesterol

You probably are aware of the incredible influence of vitamin D on your health. If you aren”t, or need a refresher, you can visit my vitamin D page.

What most people do not realize is that the best way to obtain your vitamin D is from safe exposure to sun on your skin. The UVB rays in sunlight interact with the cholesterol on your skin and convert it to vitamin D.

Bottom line?

If your cholesterol level is too low you will not be able to use the sun to generate sufficient levels of vitamin D.

Additionally, it provides some intuitive feedback that if cholesterol were so dangerous, why would your body use it as precursor for vitamin D and virtually all of the steroid hormones in your body?

Other “evidence” that cholesterol is good for you?

Consider the role of “good” HDL cholesterol. Essentially, HDL takes cholesterol from your body”s tissues and arteries, and brings it back to your liver, where most of your cholesterol is produced. If the purpose of this was to eliminate cholesterol from your body, it would make sense that the cholesterol would be shuttled back to your kidneys or intestines so your body could remove it.

Instead, it goes back to your liver. Why?

Because your liver is going to reuse it.
“It is taking it back to your liver so that your liver can recycle it; put it back into other particles to be taken to tissues and cells that need it,” Dr. Rosedale explains. “Your body is trying to make and conserve the cholesterol for the precise reason that it is so important, indeed vital, for health.”

Cholesterol and Inflammation – What”s the Connection?

Inflammation has become a bit of a buzzword in the medical field because it has been linked to so many different diseases. And one of those diseases is heart disease … the same heart disease that cholesterol is often blamed for.

What am I getting at?

Well, first consider the role of inflammation in your body. In many respects, it”s a good thing as it”s your body”s natural response to invaders it perceives as threats. If you get a cut for instance, the process of inflammation is what allows you to heal.

Specifically during inflammation:

• Your blood vessels constrict to keep you from bleeding to death
• Your blood becomes thicker so it can clot
• Your immune system sends cells and chemicals to fight viruses, bacteria and other “bad guys” that could infect the area
• Cells multiply to repair the damage

Ultimately, the cut is healed and a protective scar may form over the area.

If your arteries are damaged, a very similar process occurs inside of your body, except that a “scar” in your artery is known as plaque.

This plaque, along with the thickening of your blood and constricting of your blood vessels that normally occur during the inflammatory process, can indeed increase your risk of high blood pressure and heart attacks.

Notice that cholesterol has yet to even enter the picture.

Cholesterol comes in because, in order to replace your damaged cells, it is necessary.

Remember that no cell can form without it.

So if you have damaged cells that need to be replaced, your liver will be notified to make more cholesterol and release it into your bloodstream. This is a deliberate process that takes place in order for your body to produce new, healthy cells.

It”s also possible, and quite common, for damage to occur in your body on a regular basis. In this case, you will be in a dangerous state of chronic inflammation.

The test usually used to determine if you have chronic inflammation is a C-reactive protein (CRP) blood test. CRP level is used as a marker of inflammation in your arteries.

Generally speaking:

• A CRP level under 1 milligrams per liter of blood means you have a low risk for cardiovascular disease
• 1 to 3 milligrams means your risk is intermediate
• More than 3 milligrams is high risk

Even conventional medicine is warming up to the idea that chronic inflammation can trigger heart attacks. But they stop short of seeing the big picture.

In the eyes of conventional medicine, when they see increased cholesterol circulating in your bloodstream, they conclude that it — not the underlying damage to your arteries — is the cause of heart attacks.

Which brings me to my next point.

The Insanity of Lowering Cholesterol

Sally Fallon, the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and Mary Enig, Ph.D, an expert in lipid biochemistry, have gone so far as to call high cholesterol “an invented disease, a “problem” that emerged when health professionals learned how to measure cholesterol levels in the blood.”^[iii]

And this explanation is spot on.

If you have increased levels of cholesterol, it is at least in part because of increased inflammation in your body. The cholesterol is there to do a job: help your body to heal and repair.

Conventional medicine misses the boat entirely when they dangerously recommend that lowering cholesterol with drugs is the way to reduce your risk of heart attacks, because what is actually needed is to address whatever is causing your body damage — and leading to increased inflammation and then increased cholesterol.

As Dr. Rosedale so rightly points out:2“If excessive damage is occurring such that it is necessary to distribute extra cholesterol through the bloodstream, it would not seem very wise to merely lower the cholesterol and forget about why it is there in the first place.

It would seem much smarter to reduce the extra need for the cholesterol — the excessive damage that is occurring, the reason for the chronic inflammation.”
I”ll discuss how to do this later in the report, but first let”s take a look at the dangers of low cholesterol — and how it came to be that cholesterol levels needed to be so low in the first place.

If Your Cholesterol is Too Low …

All kinds of nasty things can happen to your body. Remember, every single one of your cells needs cholesterol to thrive — including those in your brain. Perhaps this is why low cholesterol wreaks havoc on your psyche.

One large study conducted by Dutch researchers found that men with chronically low cholesterol levels showed a consistently higher risk of having depressive symptoms.^[iv]

This may be because cholesterol affects the metabolism of serotonin, a substance involved in the regulation of your mood. On a similar note, Canadian researchers found that those in the lowest quarter of total cholesterol concentration had more than six times the risk of committing suicide as did those in the highest quarter.^[v]

Dozens of studies also support a connection between low or lowered cholesterol levels and violent behavior, through this same pathway: lowered cholesterol levels may lead to lowered brain serotonin activity, which may, in turn, lead to increased violence and aggression.^[vi]

And one meta-analysis of over 41,000 patient records found that people who take statin drugs to lower their cholesterol as much as possible may have a higher risk of cancer,^[vii] while other studies have linked low cholesterol to Parkinson”s disease.

What cholesterol level is too low? Brace yourself.

Probably any level much under 150 — an optimum would be more like 200.

Now I know what you are thinking: “But my doctor tells me my cholesterol needs to be under 200 to be healthy.” Well let me enlighten you about how these cholesterol recommendations came to be. And I warn you, it is not a pretty story.

This is a significant issue. I have seen large numbers of people who have their cholesterol lowered below 150, and there is little question in my mind that it is causing far more harm than any benefit they are receiving by lowering their cholesterol this low.

Who Decided What Cholesterol Levels are Healthy or Harmful?

In 2004, the U.S. government”s National Cholesterol Education Program panel advised those at risk for heart disease to attempt to reduce their LDL cholesterol to specific, very low, levels.

Before 2004, a 130-milligram LDL cholesterol level was considered healthy. The updated guidelines, however, recommended levels of less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

Keep in mind that these extremely low targets often require multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs to achieve.

Fortunately, in 2006 a review in the Annals of Internal Medicine^[viii] found that there is insufficient evidence to support the target numbers outlined by the panel. The authors of the review were unable to find research providing evidence that achieving a specific LDL target level was important in and of itself, and found that the studies attempting to do so suffered from major flaws.

Several of the scientists who helped develop the guidelines even admitted that the scientific evidence supporting the less-than-70 recommendation was not very strong.

So how did these excessively low cholesterol guidelines come about?

Eight of the nine doctors on the panel that developed the new cholesterol guidelines had been making money from the drug companies that manufacture statin cholesterol-lowering drugs.^[ix]

The same drugs that the new guidelines suddenly created a huge new market for in the United States.

Coincidence? I think not.

Now, despite the finding that there is absolutely NO evidence to show that lowering your LDL cholesterol to 100 or below is good for you, what do you think the American Heart Association STILL recommends?

Lowering your LDL cholesterol levels to less than 100.^[x]

And to make matters worse, the standard recommendation to get to that level almost always includes one or more cholesterol-lowering drugs.

The Dangers of Cholesterol-Lowering Medications

If you are concerned about your cholesterol levels, taking a drug should be your absolute last resort. And when I say last resort, I”m saying the odds are very high, greater than 100 to 1, that you don”t need drugs to lower your cholesterol.

To put it another way, among the more than 20,000 patients who have come to my clinic, only four or five of them truly needed these drugs, as they had genetic challenges of familial hypercholesterolemia that required it..

Contrast this to what is going on in the general population. According to data from Medco Health Solutions Inc., more than half of insured Americans are taking drugs for chronic health conditions. And cholesterol-lowering medications are the second most common variety among this group, with nearly 15 percent of chronic medication users taking them (high blood pressure medications — another vastly over-prescribed category — were first).^[xi]

Disturbingly, as written in BusinessWeek early in 2008, “Some researchers have even suggested — half-jokingly — that the medications should be put in the water supply.”^[xii]

Count yourself lucky that you probably do NOT need to take cholesterol-lowering medications, because these are some nasty little pills.

Statin drugs work by inhibiting an enzyme in your liver that”s needed to manufacture cholesterol. What is so concerning about this is that when you go tinkering around with the delicate workings of the human body, you risk throwing everything off kilter.

Case in point, “statin drugs inhibit not just the production of cholesterol, but a whole family of intermediary substances, many if not all of which have important biochemical functions in their own right,” say Enig and Fallon.3

For starters, statin drugs deplete your body of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which is beneficial to heart health and muscle function. Because doctors rarely inform people of this risk and advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement, this depletion leads to fatigue, muscle weakness, soreness, and eventually heart failure.

Muscle pain and weakness, a condition called rhabdomyolysis, is actually the most common side effect of statin drugs, which is thought to occur because statins activate the atrogin-1 gene, which plays a key role in muscle atrophy.^[xiii]

By the way, muscle pain and weakness may be an indication that your body tissues are actually breaking down — a condition that can cause kidney damage.

Statin drugs have also been linked to:

• An increased risk of polyneuropathy (nerve damage that causes pain in the hands and feet and trouble walking)
• Dizziness
• Cognitive impairment, including memory loss^[xiv]
• A potential increased risk of cancer^[xv]
• Decreased function of the immune system^[xvi]
• Depression
• Liver problems, including a potential increase in liver enzymes (so people taking statins must be regularly monitored for normal liver function)

And recently a possible association was found between statins and an increased risk of Lou Gehrig”s disease.^[xvii]

Other cholesterol-lowering drugs besides statins also have side effects, most notably muscle pain and weakness.

IMPORTANT NOTE

If, for whatever reason, you or someone you know or love does not believe the information in this report and chooses to stay on statin drugs, then please make sure they at least take one to two Ubiquinols per day.

This will help prevent all the side effects mentioned above.

Ubiquinol is the reduced version of Coenzyme Q-10 and is far more effective if you are over 35-40 years old. It is the form of the supplement that actually works, and if you take CoQ-10 and your body can”t reduce it to uniquinol you are just fooling yourself and wasting your money.

You can visit our ubiquinol information page for more details.

Are Cholesterol Drugs Even Effective?

With all of these risks, the drugs had better be effective, right? Well, even this is questionable. At least, it depends on how you look at it.

Most cholesterol lowering drugs can effectively lower your cholesterol numbers, but are they actually making you any healthier, and do they help prevent heart disease?

Have you ever heard of the statistic known as NNT, or number needed to treat?

I didn”t think so. In fact, most doctors haven”t either. And herein lies the problem.

NNT answers the question: How many people have to take a particular drug to avoid one incidence of a medical issue (such as a heart attack)?

For example, if a drug had an NNT of 50 for heart attacks, then 50 people have to take the drug in order to prevent one heart attack.

Easy enough, right?

Well, drug companies would rather that you not focus on NNT, because when you do, you get an entirely different picture of their “miracle” drugs. Take, for instance, Pfizer”s Lipitor, which is the most prescribed cholesterol medication in the world and has been prescribed to more than 26 million Americans.^[xviii]

According to Lipitor”s own Web site, Lipitor is clinically proven to lower bad cholesterol 39-60 percent, depending on the dose. Sounds fairly effective, right?

Well, BusinessWeek actually did an excellent story on this very topic earlier this year,^[xix] and they found the REAL numbers right on Pfizer”s own newspaper ad for Lipitor.

Upon first glance, the ad boasts that Lipitor reduces heart attacks by 36 percent. But there is an asterisk. And when you follow the asterisk, you find the following in much smaller type:

“That means in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor.”

What this means is that for every 100 people who took the drug over 3.3 years, three people on placebos, and two people on Lipitor, had heart attacks. That means that taking Lipitor resulted in just one fewer heart attack per 100 people.

The NNT, in this case, is 100. One hundred people have to take Lipitor for more than three years to prevent one heart attack. And the other 99 people, well, they”ve just dished out hundreds of dollars and increased their risk of a multitude of side effects for nothing.

So you can see how the true effectiveness of cholesterol drugs like Lipitor is hidden behind a smokescreen.

Or in some cases, not hidden at all.

Zetia and Vytorin: No Medical Benefits

Early in 2008, it came out that Zetia, which works by inhibiting absorption of cholesterol from your intestines, and Vytorin, which is a combination of Zetia and Zocor (a statin drug), do not work.

This was discovered AFTER the drugs acquired close to 20 percent of the U.S. market for cholesterol-lowering drugs. And also after close to 1 million prescriptions for the drugs were being written each week in the United States, bringing in close to $4 billion in 2007.^[xx]

It was only after the results of a trial by the drugs” makers, Merck and Schering-Plough, were released that this was found out. Never mind that the trial was completed in April 2006, and results were not released until January 2008.

And it”s no wonder the drug companies wanted to hide these results.

While Zetia does lower cholesterol by 15 percent to 20 percent, trials did not show that it reduces heart attacks or strokes, or that it reduces plaques in arteries that can lead to heart problems.

The trial by the drugs” makers, which studied whether Zetia could reduce the growth of plaques, found that plaques grew nearly twice as fast in patients taking Zetia along with Zocor (Vytorin) than in those taking Zocor alone.^[xxi]

Of course, the answer is not to turn back to typical statin drugs to lower your cholesterol, as many of the so-called experts would have you believe.

You see, statins are thought to have a beneficial effect on inflammation in your body, thereby lowering your risk of heart attack and stroke.

But you can lower inflammation in your body naturally, without risking any of the numerous side effects of statin drugs. This should also explain why my guidelines for lowering cholesterol are identical to those to lower inflammation.

For more in-depth information about cholesterol-lowering drugs, please see my recently updated statin drug index page.

How to Lower Inflammation, and Thereby Your Risk of Heart Disease, Naturally

There is a major misconception that you must avoid foods like eggs and saturated fat to protect your heart. While it”s true that fats from animal sources contain cholesterol, I”ve explained earlier in this article why this should not scare you — but I”ll explain even further here.

This misguided principle is based on the “lipid hypothesis” — developed in the 1950s by nutrition pioneer Ancel Keys — that linked dietary fat to coronary heart disease.

The nutrition community of that time completely accepted the hypothesis, and encouraged the public to cut out butter, red meat, animal fats, eggs, dairy and other “artery clogging” fats from their diets — a radical change at that time.

What you may not know is that when Keys published his analysis that claimed to prove the link between dietary fats and coronary heart disease, he selectively analyzed information from only six countries to prove his correlation, rather than comparing all the data available at the time — from 22 countries.

As a result of this “cherry-picked” data, government health organizations began bombarding the public with advice that has contributed to the diabetes and obesity epidemics going on today: eat a low-fat diet.

Not surprisingly, numerous studies have actually shown that Keys” theory was wrong and saturated fats are healthy, including these studies from Fallon and Enig”s classic article The Skinny on Fats:^[xxii]

• A survey of South Carolina adults found no correlation of blood cholesterol levels with “bad” dietary habits, such as use of red meat, animal fats, fried foods, butter, eggs, whole milk, bacon, sausage and cheese.^[xxiii]
• A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine.^[xxiv]

Of course, as Americans cut out nutritious animal fats from their diets, they were left hungry. So they began eating more processed grains, more vegetable oils, and more high-fructose corn syrup, all of which are nutritional disasters.

It is this latter type of diet that will eventually lead to increased inflammation, and therefore cholesterol, in your body. So don”t let anyone scare you away from saturated fat anymore.

Chronic inflammation is actually caused by a laundry list of items such as:

• Oxidized cholesterol (cholesterol that has gone rancid, such as that from overcooked, scrambled eggs)
• Eating lots of sugar and grains
• Eating foods cooked at high temperatures
• Eating trans fats
• A sedentary lifestyle
• Smoking
• Emotional stress

So to sum it all up, in order to lower your inflammation and cholesterol levels naturally, you must address the items on this list.

How to Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally …

1. Make sure you”re getting plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega3-fats. I prefer those from krill oil. New research suggests that as little as 500 mg may lower your total cholesterol and triglycerides and will likely increase your HDL cholesterol.
2. Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your daily diet. It is especially important to eliminate dangerous sugars such as fructose. If your HDL/Cholesterol ratio is abnormal and needs to be improved it would also serve you well to virtually eliminate fruits from your diet, as that it also a source of fructose. Once your cholesterol improves you can gradually reintroduce it to levels that don”t raise your cholesterol.
3. Eat the right foods for your nutritional type. You can learn your nutritional type by taking our FREE test.
4. Eat a good portion of your food raw.
5. Eat healthy, preferably raw, fats that correspond to your nutritional type. This includes:
   • Olive oil
   • Coconut and coconut oil
   • Organic raw dairy products (including butter, cream, sour cream, cheese, etc.)
   • Avocados
   • Raw nuts
   • Seeds
   • Eggs (lightly cooked with yolks intact or raw)
   • Organic, grass-fed meats
6. Get the right amount of exercise, especially Peak Fitness type of exercise. When you exercise you increase your circulation and the blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of fighting an illness before it has the opportunity to spread.
7. Avoid smoking and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol.
8. Address your emotional challenges. I particularly love the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) for stress management.

So there you have it; the reasons why high cholesterol is a worry that many of you simply do not need to have, along with a simple plan to optimize yours.

If someone you love is currently taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, I urge you to share this information with them as well, and take advantage of the thousands of free pages of information on www.Mercola.com.

For the majority of you reading this right now, there”s no reason to risk your health with cholesterol-lowering drugs. With the plan I”ve just outlined, you”ll achieve the cholesterol levels you were meant to have, along with the very welcome “side effects” of increased energy, mood and mental clarity.

Too good to be true?

Hardly.

For the vast majority of people, making a few lifestyle changes causes healthy cholesterol levels to naturally occur.

As always, your health really is in your hands. Now it”s up to you to take control — and shape it into something great.

References

[i] American Heart Association January 23, 2008

[ii] Mercola.com, Cholesterol is NOT the Cause of Heart Disease, Ron Rosedale May 28, 2005

[iii] Fallon, S. and Mary Enig. “Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven”t Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines,” The Weston A. Price Foundation

[iv] Psychosomatic Medicine 2000;62.

[v] Epidemiology 2001 Mar;12:168-72

[vi] Annals of Internal Medicine (1998;128(6):478-487) The Journal of the American Medical Association (1997;278:313-321)

[vii] Journal of the American College of Cardiology July 31, 2007; 50:409-418

[viii] Annals of Internal Medicine October 3, 2006; 145(7): 520-530

[ix] USAToday.com October 16, 2004

[x] American Heart Association, “What Your Cholesterol Level Means,” accessed May 22, 2008

[xi] MSNBC.com More than half of Americans on chronic meds May 14, 2008(accessed June 9, 2008)

[xii] BusinessWeek Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good? January 17, 2008 (accessed June 9, 2008)

[xiii] The Journal of Clinical Investigation December 2007; 117(12):3940-51

[xiv] Mercola.com Sudden Memory Loss Linked to Cholesterol Drugs

[xv] Nature Medicine September, 2000;6:965-966, 1004-1010.

[xvi] Nature Medicine, December, 2000; 6: 1311-1312, 1399-1402

[xvii] Edwards, I. Ralph; Star, Kristina; Kiuru, Anne, “Statins, Neuromuscular Degenerative Disease and an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Like Syndrome,” Drug Safety, Volume 30, Number 6, 2007 , pp. 515-525(11)

[xviii] IMS Heallth. IMS National Prescription Audit Plus July 2007.

[xix] BusinessWeek.com, “Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?” January 17, 2008 (accessed June 10, 2008)

[xx] New York Times, “Cardiologists Question Delay of Data on 2 Drugs,” November 21, 2007 (accessed June 10, 2008)

[xxi] New York Times, “Drug Has No Benefit in Trial, Makers Say,” January 14, 2008 (accessed June 10, 2008)

[xxii] Enig, M and Sally Fallon, “The Skinny on Fats,” The Weston A. Price Foundation,

[xxiii] Lackland, D T, et al, J Nutr, Nov 1990, 120:11S:1433-1436

[xxiv] Nutr Week, Mar 22, 1991, 21:12:2-3

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

By Sally Fallon Morell, President The Weston A. Price Foundation July 8, 2010

The proposed 2010 Dietary Guidelines perpetuate the mistakes of previous guidelines in demonizing saturated fats and animal foods rich in saturated fatty acids such as egg yolks, butter, whole milk, cheese, fatty meats like bacon and animal fats for cooking. The current obesity epidemic emerged as vegetable oils and refined carbohydrates replaced these healthy, nutrient-dense traditional fats. Animal fats supply many essential nutrients that are difficult to obtain from other sources. Furthermore, basic biochemistry shows that the human body has a very high requirement for saturated fats and cholesterol in all cell membranes; if we do not eat saturated fats, the body will simply make them from carbohydrates, but excess carbohydrate increases blood levels of triglyceride and small, dense LDL and compromises blood vessel function. High-carbohydrate diets, moreover, fail to satisfy the appetite as well as diets rich in traditional fats, leading to higher caloric intakes and often to bingeing and splurging on empty foods, resulting in rapid weight gain.

The proposed guidelines will perpetuate existing nutrient deficiencies present in all American population groups, including deficiencies in vitamins A, and D, found in animal fats, vitamins B12 and B6 found in meat and seafood, as well as minerals like iron and zinc. Low intakes of vitamin K2, moreover, are associated with increases in the risk of osteoporosis, heart disease and cancer, and the main sources of vitamin K2 available to Americans are egg yolks and full-fat cheeses.

By restricting healthy animal fats in school lunches and diets for pregnant women and growing children, the Guidelines will perpetuate the tragic epidemic of learning and behavior disorders. The nutrients found in most abundantly and in some cases exclusively in animal fats—including choline, cholesterol and arachidonic acid—are critical for the development of the brain and the function of receptors that modulate thinking and behavior. Studies show that choline from egg yolks and liver help the brain make critical connections and protect against neurotoxins; animals studies suggest that if choline is abundant during developmental years, the individual is protected for life from developmental decline. The National Academy of Sciences recommends 375 mg per day for children nine through thirteen years of age, 450 mg for pregnant women and 550 mg for lactating women and men aged fourteen and older. These amounts are provided by four or five egg yolks per day—but that would entail consuming 800-1000 mg cholesterol, a crime by USDA standards. The committee referred to this as the “choline problem.” Pregnant women and growing children especially need to eat as many egg yolks as possible—yet the Guidelines demonize this nutrient-dense food.

Choline is also essential to liver health. As the prevalence of obesity has grown to reach epidemic proportions, “fatty liver disease” has emerged as one of its casualties. It is estimated 40 percent of obese Americans have fatty liver. One of the most common ways to induce this disease in animals is to feed them diets deficient in choline and methionine, an amino acid found abundantly in meat. Restricting animal foods in our children’s meals will thus aggravate the consequences of the obesity epidemic.

The Guidelines lump trans fats together with saturated fats—calling them Solid Fats—thereby hiding the difference between unhealthy industrial trans fats and healthy traditional saturated fats. Trans fats contribute to inflammation, depress the immune system, interfere with hormone production, and set up pathological conditions leading to cancer and heart disease, whereas saturated fats fight inflammation, support the immune system, support hormone production and protect against cancer and heart disease.

The vitamins and fatty acids carried uniquely in saturated animal fats are critical to reproduction. The 2010 Guidelines will increase infertility in this country, already at tragically high rates.The 2010 proposed Guidelines represent a national scandal, the triumph of industry clout over good science and common sense. It must be emphasized that the Guidelines are not based on science but are designed to promote the products of commodity agriculture and—through the back door—encourage the consumption of processed foods. For while the USDA food police pay lip service to reducing our intake of refined sweeteners, trans fats, white flour and salt, this puritanical lowfat prescription ultimately leads to cravings and indulgence in chips, sweets, sodas, breads, desserts and other empty food-and-beverage- like products just loaded with refined sweeteners, trans fats, white flour and salt.

While the ship of state is sinking under a health crisis of enormous proportions, the USDA proposed Guidelines simply rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Without more sensible recommendations, the trend to obesity, learning disorders, chronic disease and infertility will accelerate.

The Weston A. Price Foundation proposes starting over and adopting our Healthy 4 Life Dietary Guidelines, based on four food groups, always with an emphasis on quality through pasture-based feeding and organic, pesticide-free production methods:

Every day, eat high quality, whole foods to provide an abundance of nutrients, chosen from each of the following four groups:

Animal foods: meat and organ meats, poultry, and eggs from pastured animals; fish and shellfish; whole raw cheese, milk and other dairy products from pastured animals; and broth made from animal bones.

Grains, legumes and nuts: whole-grain baked goods, breakfast porridges, whole grain rice; beans and lentils; peanuts, cashews and nuts, properly prepared to improve digestibility.

Fruits and Vegetables: preferably fresh or frozen, preferably locally grown, either raw, cooked or in soups and stews, and also as lacto-fermented condiments.

Fats and Oils: unrefined saturated and monounsaturated fats including butter, lard, tallow and other animal fats; palm oil and coconut oil; olive oil; cod liver oil for vitamins A and D.

Avoid: foods containing refined sweeteners such as candies, sodas, cookies, cakes etc.; white flour products such as pasta and white bread; processed foods; modern soy foods; polyunsaturated and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and fried foods.

Sally Fallon Morell,

President The Weston A. Price Foundation

www.westonaprice.org

(202) 363-4394

info@westonaprice.org

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

There is so much lead in these products that in California, according to Prop 65, there needs to be a disclaimer on these products, letting the public know that they contain lead.

Under Proposition 65, California’s Governor publishes a list of chemicals “known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive harm.” Lead is listed as both. If any consumer product contains a listed chemical at a level that presents a “significant risk” the manufacturer and retailer must give a “clear and reasonable warning” about the exposure

Additionally, lead is a potent neurotoxin, with the potential to cause significant decreases in IQ and even mental retardation.  The American Academy of Pediatrics states that there is no safe level of lead in the body.

Maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised, after all there is mercury in 40% of high fructose corn syrup (Hershey’s chocolate syrup, Poptarts, and Smuckers strawberry jelly to name a few top sellers)  and neither the media nor the medical community is talking about it much.

But I really expected more from organic products and Trader Joes.  I wonder if California will be putting Prop 65 labels on high fructose containing foods as well.

The good news is that juice isn’t good for us anyway. Even 100% juice is full of fructose which is damaging to the liver, increases inflammation in our bodies, rots our teeth, and increases our risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

So this just gives us another good reason to eat whole fruit and drink lots of water.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I’ve finally found it.  Well, truthfully, I didn’t find it, Drs. Brownstein, Ng and Nussbaum found it, but I finally discovered it for myself.

100% pure and natural Crystalux is the BEST!

I had used regular deodorant/antiperspirant for years and years.  Knowing that aluminum is not good in your body or on your body, I always felt wrong doing this but knew no other option. My sweat smelled like metal and I didn’t like it.  It’s a bad thing when you hate the way you smell.  So, last year, I decided to get rid of the aluminum.  After a few weeks, I stopped smelling of metal, but now I smelled like a man.   Not so great … but healthier and better than metal.

Since then, I tried multiple deodorants, however none did the trick.   Finally, I stuck with Tom’s deodorant which is aluminum free, however, while better than the rest, still didn’t really stop the smell.

Then this week, I was looking around my the Center for Holistic Medicine’s supplement/ vitamin area (there is so much in there that I’m always finding something new and interesting) when I glanced at some deodorant on a shelf, called Crystalux.

The label reads: Crystalux is a natural mineral salt roll-on that work by altering the skin’s pH and thus eliminating odor. Provides 24 hour maximum odor protection, guaranteed.  Crystalux stops odor causing bacteria before they multiply on the skin’s surface.

Hmmm….I bought both the liquid roll-on and the solid crystal block and decided to try out both – one for each pit.  (Sorry about the semi-raunchy nature to my writing today – I just sent my daughter off to overnight camp, so I’m still in camp mode.)  I couldn’t believe it.  Both worked and equally well.

Being hopeful,  I went to yoga yesterday – HOT room – I sweated.  Other people smelled, but not me!  And today, even in 84 degree weather and the stress of getting my daughter off to overnight camp, I still do not smell.  Believe it or not, this mineral salt really works.

My husband, the skeptic, will be the ultimate test.  Starting tomorrow.  I can’t wait to smell the results.

Drum Roll – dum dada dum…

Crytalux worked beautifully for my husband too!

After 3 days, he is convinced – It worked at home, at work, and under stress of throwing a party for his collegues.  What’s most amazing is that it is working as an antiperspirant as well.  I didn’t expect that.

So he’s using Crystalux and loving it too.  And I love knowing that we’re no longer putting toxic metals into our body and love just smelling him, not that horrible perfumy smell.

P.S. Both of us like the SOLID CRYSTAL BLOCK better than the roll-on (while you need to put a little water on the stick, the roll-on got smelly and was too watery for my husband.)

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The Environmental Working Group researched conventionally grown fruits and vegetables and found 12 foods to have the most pesticide residue.  The produce on this list contain between 47 to 67 different pesticides.  Hence, if you are going to buy limited organic produce, the Dirty Dozen below are the ones to make sure are organic.  These include frozen produce as well.

The Dirty Dozen are :

• Celery

• Peaches

• Strawberries

• Apples

• Domestic blueberries

• Nectarines

• Sweet bell peppers

• Spinach, kale and collard greens

• Cherries

• Potatoes

• Imported grapes

• Lettuce

“It’s critical people know what they are consuming,” the Environmental Working Group’s Amy Rosenthal said. ” This list is based on pesticide tests conducted after the produce was washed with USDA high-power pressure water system. The numbers reflect the closest thing to what consumers are buying at the store.”

Babies and children are the most as risk due to their developing brains.  We don’t yet know why we are seeing so many more children with ADD, Autism, allergies, asthma, autoimmune diseases and cancer.  Pesticide exposure during pregnancy and during early childhood certainly could play a part in the development of these chronic illnesses.

“To the extent you can afford to do so, [parents] should simply buy organic, because there have been some very good studies that shows people who eat mostly organic food reduce 95 percent of pesticides [in their body] in two weeks,” said Dr. Philip Landrigan, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/01/dirty.dozen.produce.pesticide/index.html

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

A recent research article was published in Pediatrics, a well respected medical journal, that found children with higher pesticide levels to be twice as likely to have ADD/ADHD. The study was done very well and should be taken seriously. It clearly suggests that our children are being exposed to significant quantities of pesticides, most likely from those sprayed on food, and that these pesticides are damaging our children’s nervous systems, showing up as ADD and ADHD.

Since all children have different genetics and differing biochemistries, some may be more affected than others.  But just because your child doesn’t have ADD or ADHD doesn’t mean that your child’s body is not being damaged by these toxins.

I strongly encourage parents to buy organic vegetables and fruits, especially when it comes to frozen fruits and vegetables.  But if this is not possible, at least ALWAYS wash your vegetables and fruits with a good fruit/vegie wash, like the kind you find at Trader Joes, Whole Foods, or Plum Market.  Make sure it has grapefruit seed extract in it.  This is the best way to remove pesticides from food and thus minimize our exposure to them.

Other reasons why organic food is better for you and family:

• Organic farming is better for wildlife and the environment.  Organic farming results in less air, water, and land pollution and produces less global warming gases.

• Organic food isn’t genetically modified.  The effects of genetically modified foods on our bodies is unknown, but many studies suggest the possibility for the genetic modifications to be incorporated into our human DNA.  Other studies link genetically modified foods to an increase in allergies (food and environmental.)

• Organic food doesn’t contain harmful food additives (ie.sodium benzoate), flavor enhancers (i.e. MSG), artificial sweeteners (i.e. sucralose, aspartame and high-fructose corn syrup), or preservatives (i.e. sodium nitrate), that have been linked to a multitude of health problems.

• Organic farming standards prohibit the use of antibiotics, growth hormones and genetically modified vaccines in farm animals.

• Organic fruits and vegetables come from healthier soil and are thus more nutritious and less toxic. Organic foods contain more trace minerals and antioxidants, and less chemicals, nitrites, and other toxins.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Fifty-five children in Western Australia, 5 years and younger, have been identified with possible convulsions after receiving the flu shot,

and 196 had less serious reactions such as fever, vomiting and inflammation at the injection site, Western Australia’s health department said. (4)

The vaccine is the FIRST seasonal influenza vaccine to contain the H1N1 strain.(4)

The Australian and New Zealand government has taken this seriously and placed a ban on flu vaccinations for children under 5 years old.

Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jim Bishop AO, MD, MMed, MBBS, FRACP, FRCPA announced that after considering the results to date of a comprehensive study into the safety of seasonal flu vaccine for young children, he has advised, as a precaution, the suspension of season flu vaccination for healthy children under the age of five years. (5)

While the expected febrile convulsions rate should be 1 per 1,000 at the most, epidemiological analyses point to a rate of febrile convulsions in children aged under five years following 2010 seasonal influenza vaccination of about 9 per 1000 children vaccinated. (5)

But if it is such a concern for children under 5 that they are banning it, could it be doing any harm to children over 5, pregnant women, those with chronic illness, or the elderly?

Hmmm… lucky for us, flu vaccination doesn’t begin here for a few more months.

1.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10640892

2.http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/flu-vaccination-ban-goes-national-after-fever-convulsions-in-children-20100423-tglp.html

3.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/07/2893518.htm

4. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-28/csl-vaccine-probe-widens-in-australia-after-seizures-update2-.html

5. http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/06/18/seasonal-flu-vaccination-should-be-suspended-for-healthy-children-under-5-chief-medical-officer-australia/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

As a pediatrician, I often ask kids: “What is the healthiest drink for an athlete?”  No, it is NOT Gatorade, I find myself saying all too often.  It is water.  “But aren’t sports drinks good?” I hear parents ask.  No!  In fact, most sports drinks are closer to poison.

Have you ever looked at the ingredients in sports drinks?  Water, high fructose corn syrup are the first two ingredients.  Yes, water and lots of poor quality sugar – 10 1/2 sugar packets per 20 oz bottle to be exact!

In other words, one 20 oz Gatorade contains 34 gms of sugar, equivalent to 12 pieces of Starburst!

However it’s even worse because HFCS is genetically modified, contains traces of the neurotoxin mercury, damages our liver and quickly turns into glycogen. What is glycogen? Stored sugar.  What happens to stored sugar?  It turns to fat!

The University of California at Berkeley warns that “students who drink one 20-ounce sports drink every day for a year can gain about 13 pounds!”

Granted, if you were running a marathon, a little glycogen can be a good thing.  But for the average athlete or person exercising, we want to use our glycogen stores, not create more.

How about the rest of the ingredients?  Depending on the flavor, there are natural and artificial flavors, salt, sodium citrate, yellow 6, glycerol ester of wood rosin, brominated vegetable oil (BVO), and red 40.  Most of these are toxins, with BVO being the most dangerous.  BVO is labeled as unsafe by the FDA, capable of causing multiorgan damage, birth defects and growth problems.

Yes, there are electolytes in sports drinks but the negatives of the other ingredients completely outweight any potential benefit.

Don’t think that the other commercial sports drinks are any better.  If you have any diet version, such as Propel, you are substituting the HFCS with sucralose.  This decreases the calories, but now you are drinking a chlorocarbon, similar to DDT and Lindane.  No long term (>12months) human studies have been performed on sucralose.  However, in animal studies, sucralose caused liver and kidney inflammation and damaged the immune system. Don’t be fooled by Vitamin Water which contains crystalline fructose which is very similar to HFCS.  While PowerAde has less salt, it is likely the most toxic sports drink having 40% more sugar, in the form of HFCS, and also chemical sweeteners phenylalanine (which converts into formaldehyde) and sucralose.

If increased weight gain and all the toxins aren’t convincing enough, consider your teeth.  Sports drinks dissolve tooth enamel, but the damage is far worse in athletes who drink them while exercising. This is due to reduced saliva during exercise, frequent sipping, and the fact that most sports drinks have a pH < 3, consequently causing 30x more erosion than if an athlete just drank water.

While water is sufficient hydration for most athletes, coconut water is great for serious athletes.  Coconut water is high in potassium, chlorides, calcium, and magnesium, with a modest amount of sodium, sugar, and protein. Add a pinch of Celtic Sea salt to add a few more trace minerals and sodium and it’s perfect.  Often called “natures’ sports drink,” coconut water is even given intravenously for dehydration in tropical areas.

The next time you want a drink, READ the ingredients and THINK for yourself about what’s in it and what you are trying to achieve.

Your body will thank you for it!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

During a 2 year study that was being conducted in India to evaluate the utility and acceptability of Gardasil, FOUR girls have DIED and 120 girls reported COMPLICATIONS after vaccination.

“The girls complained of stomach disorders, epilepsy (seizures), headaches and early menarche (early onset of menstruation).” (1) The study was halted for both medical and ethical reasons.  This is the identical vaccine given to American children.

I personally, have seen two girls with significant reactions that began after having received the Gardasil vaccine.  On the day of vaccination (given in the arm), one girl developed serious leg pains which lasted for several days.  The other previously healthy girl, however, was not so fortunate.  Within 2 weeks of getting her first Gardasil vaccine, she developed a bizarre constellation of symptoms ranging from unilateral edema (swelling) of her arm, breast and chest, severe pain, numbness, tingling, and she also developed enuresis.  Yes, this teenager became incontinent and had to wear a diaper to school.  At first, we were all confused by her symptoms and their etiology.  Because her symptoms didn’t begin until close to 2 weeks after vaccination, I don’t even think any of us considered any association.  She saw several specialists, some whom not surprisingly thought her symptoms were all psychological.  (Often when doctors don’t have an explanation and symptoms don’t make sense to them, psychiatric illness is where they place the blame.)  After I began working with this girl, her symptoms began to improve.  However, then she was given the second Gardasil vaccine and her symptoms promptly returned, worse than before.  To her mother, it seemed quite obvious that either this vaccine caused these symptoms or was the trigger that brought them out.  Needless to say, I strongly recommended that she not receive the third shot.

I must admit that the thought of a vaccine that could decrease the chances of a woman getting cervical cancer was very enticing at first.  I think that this is what convinced so many doctors to recommend it as soon as it came out and why so many parents and girls are wanting to get it.  However, after seeing such a severe reaction in my patient, I began to strongly question the safety of the Gardasil vaccine. So I did some research, and here’s what I learned:

The US keeps record of adverse events occuring after vaccines.  This program is called VAERS – The Vaccine Adverse Reporting System. VAERS is the place where people and doctors report all possible vaccine side effects/ associated symptoms.  Most of the time, it takes a very strong reaction, with close proximity to a vaccination, to trigger a doctor to report a symptom to VAERS.  It is estimated that only between 1 and 10 percent of all adverse health outcomes which occur following vaccination are reported to VAERS. (5,6,7) Using the VAERS data, the National Vaccine Information Center compared the adverse events reported comparing Gardasil to Menactra, since both vaccines are given to a similar population of healthy teenage girls.

What you will see is that the numbers of girls who had adverse events after receiving the Gardisil are far higher than those seen in the same healthy population of girls who received the Menactra vaccine, which is given to prevent meningitis.   One argument often made is that Gardasil is given in three doses while Menactra only one, thus there is tripling the likelihood that an adverse event could be random and unrelated to the vaccine.  But again, as you look at the numbers, you will see far more than a triple increase in most adverse events.

Comparing these two vaccines (Gardasil/Menactra), girls who were given Gardasil had:

• BLOOD CLOTS (23/0)
• THROMBOSIS (34/1)
• CARDIAC ARREST (9/2)
• STROKE (16/1)
• LUPUS (28/6)
• SEIZURES (544/158 (73 of these 158 were given both vaccines)), and
• VASCULITIS (11/2) far more frequently than those who received Menactra.

After being given Gardasil:

• 261 (vs. 29) girls have become DISABLED,
• 2017 (vs. 393) have NOT recovered from their symptoms and
• 29 (vs. 6) girls have DIED. (3)

As you can see, the ADVERSE EVENTS after the Gardasil vaccine are FAR in EXCESS of TRIPLE what would be expected from a healthy population of girls!

Furthermore, the adverse symptoms are not limited to the above list.  There are many others symptoms in excess of triple Menactra’s rate: alopeica, arrythmia, arthritis, blindness, collapse, fainting, hair loss, joint pain, migraine, rheumatoid arthritis, and syncope. (3)

And what are the potential benefits from the Gardasil vaccine to make it so worth these risks?

Gardasil has been shown to prevent 60-80% of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) cases, many of which are associated with genital warts and future cervical cancer.  Gardasil has NOT been shown to prevent cancer - the vaccine hasn’t been around that long to show this.  “The officials concede that because the vaccine was introduced less than a decade ago, it is too early to say whether it prevents cervical cancer itself.” (2)  “A vaccine that is highly efficacious in providing protection against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, based on available epidemiological data, might be capable having a significant impact in preventing cervical cancer.”(8)  No proof of cancer prevention – just an assumption.  Interestingly, many OBGYNs don’t worry much about teenagers with atypical (pre-cancerous) cervical cells caused by HPV.  I have been told that teens’ immune systems are usually so strong that usually the body is able to clear these atypical cells on their own.

The Menactra vaccine is a completely different situation – it is given to prevent an acute life threatening illness (Neisseria meningitis) that strikes most frequently during late adolescence, with it’s highest risk being in their first year of group housing such as their freshman year at college, the first year that teens are apart from their parents.  Consequently, I see the validity in taking the risk with Menactra.

On the other hand, the Gardasil vaccine is given to hopefully prevent an illness that does not present until much later in adulthood.  Cervical cancer is often treatable, and certainly is not acute.  Unfortunately this vaccine has also recently been approved for use in boys – to decrease HPV transmission – certainly not a benefit for my son that would balance the risks!

I completely agree with the National Vaccine Information Center that “vaccines which are licensed and recommended by the government for universal use by children and young adults, should adhere to the highest standards with regard to proof of safety and efficacy.” (3)  I am very concerned about the lack of long-term safety studies, especially for girls ages 9-15 where there is the least safety data. (8)

Whether it is the body’s immune reaction to the viral particles, the 225mcg of aluminum adjuvant (4) in the vaccine, a combination of both, or something else that triggers  these adverse events is unknown.  What I do know however, is that I will NOT be giving this vaccine to my 11 year old daughter, nor my son, and will NOT be recommending that any one else does either.

If you or a loved one had a negative reaction that you feel could be related to the Gardasil vaccine, please go to:

http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/HPV/questionnaire.aspx.

It provides you both the VAERS web site to report symptoms directly and a questionnaire from National Vaccine Information Center.

Interested in reading another article about the dangers of the HPV Vaccine?  Click Here.

1. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_cancer-vaccine-programme-suspended-after-4-girls-die_1368681

2. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100409/jsp/nation/story_12320638.jsp

3. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/NVICGardasilvsMenactraVAERSReportFeb2009.pdf

4. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM111263.pdf

5.   Rosenthal S, Chen R. The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems for vaccine adverse events. Am J Public Health 1995; 85: 1708-9. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=7503351

6.   Braun M. Vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS): usefulness and limitations. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. www.vaccinesafety.edu/VAERS.htmFood and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The clinical impact of adverse event reporting. MedWatch. October 1996

7. http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/articles/medcont/postrep.htm

8.http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The first rotavirus vaccine came out right as I completed my residency program.  Having never seen a patient die from rotavirus, having never seen a patient permanently harmed from rotavirus, and at very worst, having seen the most severely affected patients with rotavirus need only IV fluids and brief 2-3 day hospitalizations, I never understood the need for the rotavirus vaccine.

Vaccines should be made to protect us from life threatening illness.

That is why we take the risk of putting these toxins in our bodies – to save lives and prevent serious illness.   For a third world country that does not have IV fluids or accessible hospitals, there, the rotavirus vaccine has a place.  Here, however, in the US, this was a vaccine of convenience – a money maker for the pharmaceutical company and a way to avoid missed work days for parents.

Hence, despite recommendations from above, I never advised it and only gave it to those children whose parents still wanted it, even after I explained fully why I didn’t think it was necessary nor worth the risk.

Within months, my concerns were confirmed.

The initial rotavirus vaccine was found to be associated with a significantly increased risk of intussucception (a severe, life threatening condition in which the intestines telescope into itself) and was taken off the market.

Consequently, doctors stopped giving the vaccine… until, of course, years later they made a new one and then another.  Still, I remained consistently and adamantly opposed to them.  I continued to advise parents against these unnecessary vaccines that provide little benefit and could prove harmful.  I fought with vaccine reps and infectious disease specialists.  I also argued with my collegues, in particular, against purchasing and providing the Rotarix vaccine as it had been found, in one study, to be associated with a significantly higher risk of death!

Now, again I am vindicated.

The FDA has asked doctors to stop using the Rotarix vaccine. This is because Rotarix has been found to be contaminated with a pig virus.

How did it get there?  No one knows.

They claim that there is no evidence that this poses a safety risk, but this is just a guess – truly, they do not know.  Here is a live vaccine, given orally to babies as young as 6 weeks old, contaminated with a pig virus. No testing has ever been done on babies exposed to this pig virus.   How do they know that it couldn’t harm these babies?

In a worst case scenario, could this pig virus be live and could it recombine with the rotavirus to create a “novel” swine stomach flu virus?

Interestingly, the only reason that this contamination was even discovered was because of some random independent researchers looking for a new way to screen vaccine for impurities.  Well, it sure seems like their testing works.   Isn’t it odd that the FDA doesn’t routinely test for impurities?

So now, why has the FDA not banned use of this vaccine, but rather has only gently asked doctors to not use it until further research is performed?

Could it be that the pharmaceutical companies have great power?   If this kind of contamination was found in a vitamin, they’d certainly ban that vitamin and put that nutraceutical company out of business immediately.

Even if doctors do stop giving the Rotarix to babies, guess what they are going to use instead… the other rotavirus vaccine that has been found to have an increased rate of Kawasaki’s disease! All this risk just to prevent a common stomach virus, which if the associated dehydration is treated, is a fairly benign illness.  I really don’t get it!

Unfortunately, doctors don’t have time to read the vaccine research and instead just trust the FDA.  What do parents then do – they trust those same doctors who trust the FDA, which is controlled by the pharmaceutical companies.

This ignorance has to stop.  People (parents and doctors) need to think for themselves before putting toxins into the bodies of their patients and loved ones.  They need to ask questions and find the answers and never trust someone else (especially not an agency) to make these decisions for them.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites